nitely greater glory of his Lord, in being the very and eternal God, or even the Creator and Gover. nor of this world? or can it be supposed, that he would leave his hearers and readers ignorant of the important, at least interesting, circumstance, that Jesus of Nazareth existed before he lived in this world in a state of great glory and happiness? Would any present believer in those doctrines, if he had once denied his Master, feel such silence justifiable? I think not, and I think too that if Peter had known that his Lord possessed a nature superior to that of man, he would not have been silent respecting it. He ascribes praise and dominion to him", and yet if the second and third opinions respecting Jesus, (viz. the Trinitarian and Arian systems,) be true, the Apostle omits to state, nay, does not once refer to, the strongest reasons. for praise or even adoration.

Evidence of PAUL.

We may now proceed to the writings of the Apostle PAUL. In perusing his Epistles with a view to the question before us, two things ought to be borne in mind; first, that Paul was not acquainted with our Saviour during his public ministry, and would therefore naturally dwell most upon the subsequent proofs of his divine authority, and upon his state of exaltation: secondly, that he had direct instructions from him; that our Lord was at least twice* personally present with Paul; and that pro

bably he much more frequently, in some way or other, manifested his purposes to this Apostle. The latter remark will render it unnecessary to refer particularly to those passages which are found in the Epistles, in which the Apostle appears to be influenced by the belief, that his Master was acquainted with his transactions, and that he often directed and supported him in the difficulties and perplexities of his commission. Language founded on such peculiar communications, which the Apostle might use with respect to our Saviour, cannot with any propriety be now used by the Christian; unless indeed it can be shewn from the Scriptures, that the Lord Jesus still personally presides over and regulates the affairs of his church, and still in a secret manner personally influences the minds of his faithful disciples.

In giving a general view of the doctrine of the Apostle respecting the person of our Saviour, as we may derive it from his Epistles, I wish to take them in the order of time; and as the opinion of Lardner on this point seems to be most generally satisfactory, I shall follow his arrangement.

6. The first Epistle to the Thessalonians (written in A. D. 52, about 16 years after the conversion of the Apostle,) contains nothing respecting the nature of our Saviour, inconsistent with, or additional to, the Apostle's declaration, that the MAN Christ Jesus is the only mediator between God and meny. He speaks of him as the Son of God, who died for our benefit and was raised by God.-The Y 1 Tim. ii. 5.

second Epistle (A. D. 52,) is equally silent as to any superiority of the nature of Jesus over human

nature.

7. The Epistle to the Galatians (A. D. 52, or 53,) was written in consequence of the successful efforts of some Judaizing teachers to persuade the Galatians to submit to the law of Moses. This one would think was a suitable opportunity for inculcating the divinity of our Saviour, as a reason why the Galatians should return to their first faith; since a covenant of which one who was the very and eternal God, or at least above all created beings, was the mediator, might reasonably be presumed to be superior to one of which a man only was the mediator2: at any rate, I can perceive no reason which should prevent the mention of, or reference to, such a striking circumstance, except what I consider as the fact, that the Apostle was not acquainted with it. He endeavours to convince the Galatians that the Christian dispensation is superior to and supersedes the Jewish; but so far from intimating that the mediator of the former was superior in nature to the mediator of the latter, he expressly says, that "when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman", born under 2 Ch. iii. 19. . Ch. iv. 4. • Compare John xvii. 18. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.'

6

< That the appellation Son of God has nothing to do with nature, but refers to character, or office, see Chap. VI. § 3. For the present I refer to Rom. viu. 14. For as many as are led by the spirit of God, they are sons of Ged;' and to 1 John v. 1. Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.'

The phrase, born of a woman,' bears no allusion to

the law" (i. e. himself subject to the law of Moses,) "to redeem those that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."-There is, indeed, one passage which may by some be thought to indicate that Jesus Christ was a super-angelic being; but however much it might suit such an opinion, it in no way whatever implies it, nor has it any thing to do with the nature but merely with the office of our Lord. And I find it has been inferred from the first verse of the Epistles, that Jesus

the supposed miraculous conception of Christ. It is a common Jewish phrase to express a proper human being. See Job xiv. 1. xv. 14. xxv. 4. Matt. xi. 11. Luke vii. 28." Note in the Improved Version-I certainly think that the expression means 'a proper human being;' and that it is well illustrated by the passages referred to; but the phrase ology in the original is somewhat different. In this passage it is γενόμενον εκ γυναικος, in the other passages it is γεννητος γυναικός. That Paul uses YEYOμEVOS in the sense here given, see Rom. i. 3.

e The Apostle obviously lays some stress upon the circumstance, that he who was to redeem those who were subjeat to the law, should not only be a human being, but also be himself subject to the law. Compare with this the reasoning of the Writer to the Hebrews, ch. ii. 16, 17, and the remarks made in this Chapter on that Epistle.

Ch. iv. 14. 'But ye received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus;' or 'but received me as a messenger of God, as Christ Jesus.'

Paul, an Apostle, not of men, nor by men, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead.'-"The Apostle's distinction here is not between a man and a being of a superior order, but between men now living in the world, and who were themselves servants and messengers of Christ, and Jesus Christ himself, who had been raised from the dead and exalted to be the head and governor of the church." See Note in the Improved Version. "Here observe," says Dr. Priestley, "Jesus Christ is

possessed a nature superior to that of man; but if the passage prove any thing against Unitarianism, it proves too much, viz. that Jesus was not a man; and I should imagine that few would show the weakness of their cause, by adducing such passages.

8. The first Epistle to the Corinthians (A. D. 56.) contains no information respecting the nature of our Saviour in addition to what has been already stated. It is true the Apostle tells his convertsh, that he had not fed them and could not then feed them with meat, since they were not able to bear it ; from which it might be inferred that he had kept and still kept the more mysterious doctrines of the Gospel from them: but if this inference suited the context (which it does not) it would also require us to admit, that these doctrines could not be essential to sanctification and redemption. The fact is, that if we take words in the plain and obvious sense, we cannot learn from this Epistle that Jesus was the very and eternal God, or even (by direct inference) that he possessed a nature superior to that of man. The Apostle, if he had foreseen the additions which have been made to the simplicity that is in Christ,' could not have more effectually guarded against one of the most striking of them, (the doctrine of trinity and unity, that in

distinguished from God, to whom he was subordinate, and by whose power, and not his own, he was raised from the dead."

Ch. iii. 2.

See ch. i. 2, 30. iii. 16, 23,

&c. * 2 Cor. xi. 3.